do all of you ex-jehovah's witnesses get upset when you are called an apostate?
you all call each other apostates, so why should you all get upset if i call you apostates?
if you don't like being called 'apostate', what title would you prefer?
LB,
Is your comment what you call a 'red hearing'? I am learning alot from the ex-JWs on this board. You know and I know that there are brothers and sisters who have served 30 years or more in prisons and never had contact with any witnesses or ever read any literature, and yet remained faithful to Jehovah.
.
in another thread i posted the following thought, but i wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.. the argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water.
according to random house webster's dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".. the word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".. if 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
There is a misconception on this board that I am against science, and that is not true. I need to explain that in Physics there are 'laws'. Physics is what is known to be an 'exacting science'. I am not talking about theories or hypothesis.
Now a law is also defined as a 'canon', and a 'canon' (according to Webster's Dictionary) is 'a general rule, law, or TRUTH'.
'Exact' is defined as ,'Marked by agreement with fact or a standard; precise or correct'.
So, is it possible that Physics, which is an exacting science, could have a 'law' that has to be updated or even corrected? If so, why can't Bible 'truths' be expanded on, even corrected? Remember, there were christians in the first century who were filled with Holy Spirit that believed that gentile christians had to be circumcised, and yet they had to be 'corrected' or 'updated' by Paul.
do all of you ex-jehovah's witnesses get upset when you are called an apostate?
you all call each other apostates, so why should you all get upset if i call you apostates?
if you don't like being called 'apostate', what title would you prefer?
Farkel,
Let me ask you this. We as witnesses have to make five meetings a week to sustain our spirituality and to encourage us. As a rule, people who miss meetings or who are not regular sometimes become weak and fall away. So, if someone is in prison for thirty years and never reads a Bible, Watchtower or any other publications, and all they can do is pray to Jehovah, who sustains them so that they remain faithful for the duration of their prison sentence?
.
in another thread i posted the following thought, but i wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.. the argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water.
according to random house webster's dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".. the word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".. if 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
Francois,
Telling me that I am in over my head is not a good answer. But I will help you to make a better argument. First of all, you could start by being explicit as to how I am playing a 'semantics' game by giving me your definition of 'truth'. Another point you could make is that the Society teaches 'Fundamental Truths" which are supposed to never change. So how would I answer that? C'mon, let's make this debate fun!!!
the dr branch-coordinator at the annual missionary-meeting: .
jehovah has to hurry with the chinese population if he wants to give them a change in armagedon.
Nathan,
Has anyone ever told you that you look like Nathan Knorr? No offense, but you guys look so much alike it is comical!
wholewheat
.
in another thread i posted the following thought, but i wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.. the argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water.
according to random house webster's dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".. the word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".. if 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
In another thread I posted the following thought, but I wanted to post this for everyone to see and give their input.
The argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water. According to Random House Webster's Dictionary, 'truth' is defined as follows,"conformity with fact or reality".
The word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".
If 'truth' never changes, then how can something taught in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
the dr branch-coordinator at the annual missionary-meeting: .
jehovah has to hurry with the chinese population if he wants to give them a change in armagedon.
The argument that 'truth' never changes holds no water. According to Webter's Dictionary truth is defines as follows,"conformity with fact or reality."
The word 'conform' is defined as,"to bring into agreement".
If 'truth' never changes, then how can something in science that is considered to be 'exact', later be corrected by 'conforming with fact or reality so as to bring into agreement'?
do all of you ex-jehovah's witnesses get upset when you are called an apostate?
you all call each other apostates, so why should you all get upset if i call you apostates?
if you don't like being called 'apostate', what title would you prefer?
SYN,
I was not aware that Jehovah wants to kill 99.9% of the Earth's population. I think that you can remember that the Bible clearly states that Jehovah "does not delight in death of anyone wicked", and neither do I, nor do many of my brothers and sisters.
With regards to voicing an opinion at a Watchtower study that is contrary to the Society's teachings, that would be counterproductive and would defeat the purpose of the Watchtower study, which is to encourage the brothers and sisters. It would make more sense to bring these questions up at the book study, and believe it or not, at the book study I attend, some very interesting topics have been discussed informally and was quite interesting. I am not force fed anything SYN, I like you, can make choices, and as I stated earlier, I choose to live as one of Jehovah's witnesses.
larc,
With regards to Ray Franz I would like to make this point. Ray did serve on the Governing Body, and as a corperate leader he was privy to confidential information that was proprietary in nature. He did betray this, and yet the Society never took legal action.
do all of you ex-jehovah's witnesses get upset when you are called an apostate?
you all call each other apostates, so why should you all get upset if i call you apostates?
if you don't like being called 'apostate', what title would you prefer?
neyank,
You asked me if the guy who switches from McDonalds to Burger King is an apostate, and my reply to that is I would be more inclined to label him a 'junk food junkie'! On a serious note, I understand the point you are making, but I think Jan H. hit the nail on the head, an apostate is one that leaves or turns on his former religion. I will try to refrain from using that term and if I do use it, I am not using it to offend. I can type 'exJW'. I am not an 'apostate' because I was never a part of another religous organisation. The question I asked at the top of this thread was to find out if exJW's find being called an 'apostate' offensive, and there are enough people here that don't like being called such, so I will refrain from using it.
larc,
Unless the owner of this board betrays my anonymity, I can and will discuss with you and others the teachings of the Society. I am not here to defend the Society's teachings, though. I am here out of concern for my brothers and sisters who are truely wonderful people that have been hurt by the dateline show, but I also have tremendous concern for the victims of molestation by witnesses that are pedophiles. I am glad that you see that I am a reasonable person, which I can see that you are too!
NewWay,
You make a very valid point, I think that what you are describing is what the ex-JW community has called 'double speak'. The comment in the Revelation book that states:"Those sacred secrets would be revealed to God's zealous slaves on earth" would have better left omitted from the book, I am glad I wasn't the one who wrote that! I think that Rutherford has made those same claims in his books which are now out of print, so it appears to me that undoubtedly some of the 'more overly enthused' brothers had a hand in writing this book. But it doesn't distract me from the wonderful articles that have given me and others so much encouragement throughout the years. I feel that by far the 'good' far outweighs the 'bad' regarding the Society's publications, wouldn't you agree? It would be interesting to read some post on this board of individuals who personally know the members of the Governing Body. It really makes for a lousy discussion if we judge people without knowing them first hand. And besides, the GB are not running things at this time, so it is apparent that some significant changes are taking place.
Kjell Hedblom,
I don't have doubts regarding my faith in Jehovah or His people. Concern? Yes. Doubts? No. And as far as calling you an apostate, I do not throw stones and I will not call you that name.
do all of you ex-jehovah's witnesses get upset when you are called an apostate?
you all call each other apostates, so why should you all get upset if i call you apostates?
if you don't like being called 'apostate', what title would you prefer?
Farkel,
You cannot judge people's hearts and not all of Jehovah's witnesses view the organisation as Jehovah Himself. You asked me an interesting question regarding the Society applying Bible prophecies to the organisation, does this bother me? Yes, as a matter of fact it does. But not to the point that it will cause me to turn on Jehovah God and my brothers and sisters. I feel that there are some definite problems with the 'Revelation' book, I feel the Society needs to stay away from interpreting allegorical writings in the scriptures as it seems to come back as an embarrasment to haunt them latter, as the exJW web pages demonstrate. People have been asking me about 607BCE on this board. I didn't dedicate my life to Jehovah because of 607BCE and I was not the one who came up this date, so I am not the resposible party if it turns out that 1914 is incorrect, which is possible. I have the privledge of serving in a wonderful congregation of loving brothers and sisters that truely love their fellow man, and CHOOSE to live by Jehovah's standards, and do not worship the organisation. The reason I am here is that the dateline show has caused some major concern, as many have been stumbled been this broadcast. I would like to discuss this a little latter with the exJWs on this board, but at this time I would like to make this point. Remember the brothers and sisters that have been in prisons for 30, 40 years in the past. They remained faithful to Jehovah, praying to Him daily, and yet never recieved any of the Society's publications. Did they worship the organisation? I think not!
